[billw55]

jillybean, on 2011-December-26, 13:04, said:

I see my regular partner and I are playing our own version which is why I am having trouble with other partners

That is what I meant with my earlier comment.

Of course in a regular partnership you can get the details nailed down. But with occasional or pickup partners, it is really hard to be on the same page.

[jillybean]

Have there been advances on Drury, do experts still play it?

[akwoo]

Here is what I think I prefer, taught to me by one partner, though not all of my regular partners want this much system:

2♣ is the only Drury bid - it is quite wide ranging, about 9-12 with 3 card support and 7-12 with 4 card support (so it contains a fair number of mixed raises).

After 2♣, 2M shows a subminimum opener - a hand that would not have opened in 1st seat.

2♦ is an inquiry promising full opening values, over which responder bids:

2M - 3 card raise, minimum
2N - no shortness, maximum
3M - 4 card raise, minimum
anything else - maximum, singleton in bid suit (this doesn't distinguish between 3 and 4 card raises, but 3 card raises with a singleton need a little more to be considered a maximum than 4 card raises with a singleton)

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2023-April-10, 09:28, said:

Have there been advances on Drury, do experts still play it?

I can tell you that a lot of experts still play it

I use different treatments in different partnerships.

My current preference is for 2C to show a 4 card constructive raise or 4 card limit and 2D to show a 3 card limit.

This maximizes bidding space to allow for exploration of constructive/limit after 2C. If interested, opener can bid 2D

Now 2M is constructive, 2OM is .I’m it with values there, 3m, similar, jumps are splinters with limit

Note, with a nod to the thread up-forum about information leakage, that opener is more likely to use the 2D bid with slam interest than with game interest.

[jillybean]

akwoo, on 2023-April-10, 13:53, said:

Here is what I think I prefer, taught to me by one partner, though not all of my regular partners want this much system:

2♣ is the only Drury bid - it is quite wide ranging, about 9-12 with 3 card support and 7-12 with 4 card support (so it contains a fair number of mixed raises).

After 2♣, 2M shows a subminimum opener - a hand that would not have opened in 1st seat.

2♦ is an inquiry promising full opening values, over which responder bids:

2M - 3 card raise, minimum
2N - no shortness, maximum
3M - 4 card raise, minimum
anything else - maximum, singleton in bid suit (this doesn't distinguish between 3 and 4 card raises, but 3 card raises with a singleton need a little more to be considered a maximum than 4 card raises with a singleton)

Thanks

So, (uncontested auction)
P 1♥
2♣* 2♠ shows maximum, in my case it would be 15-17, singleton spade?

[jillybean]

mikeh, on 2023-April-10, 14:54, said:

I can tell you that a lot of experts still play it

I use different treatments in different partnerships.

My current preference is for 2C to show a 4 card constructive raise or 4 card limit and 2D to show a 3 card limit.

This maximizes bidding space to allow for exploration of constructive/limit after 2C. If interested, opener can bid 2D

Now 2M is constructive, 2OM is .I’m it with values there, 3m, similar, jumps are splinters with limit

Note, with a nod to the thread up-forum about information leakage, that opener is more likely to use the 2D bid with slam interest than with game interest.

That sounds logical, I like the space saving.

P 1♥
2♣* 4♥ (I will try to make game)

P 1♥
2♣* 2♦ (we may have 6)

As the original thread title says, I've tried several Drury variations and settled on a 2♦ Drury because we considered 3 & 4 card support largely irrelevant when deciding on game, but I see it can be important when thinking of slam, and 2♦ Drury freed up a natural 2♣ which we thought more likely than 2♦ by a passed hand.

[akwoo]

jillybean, on 2023-April-10, 17:06, said:

Thanks

So, (uncontested auction)
P 1♥
2♣* 2♠ shows maximum, in my case it would be 15-17, singleton spade?

No - those responses were by responder after opener's 2♦ inquiry, not by opener.

[jillybean]

Mike, is 2♦ descriptive, showing a cue or simply promise a good opener and ask partner to describe their hand more?

P 1♥
2♣* 2♦

[jillybean]

akwoo, on 2023-April-11, 07:13, said:

No - those responses were by responder after opener's 2♦ inquiry, not by opener.

P 1♥
2♣* 2♦*
2♠ 1444 hand

[akwoo]

jillybean, on 2023-April-11, 07:44, said:

P 1♥
2♣* 2♦*
2♠ 1444 hand

Or 14(53) or even a very good in context 13(54)